IMAGINE for a moment that it was discovered, by chance, that six years ago the BBC had a high-level meeting of its executives and a group of “the best constitutional experts” to determine the policy of the BBC in reporting the ongoing debate about Scotland’s future governance Imagine that body said – unanimously – that maintaining the United Kingdom with Scotland as a member is the only model that should shape its editorial approach.

Even more unbelievable (surely) would be if the group consisted of only those who supported Scotland remaining in the union. It would (surely) be incomprehensible that the BBC would behave in such a way.

The tone of Monteith's excellent article suggests he would agree with the conclusion of Andrew Orlowski equally excellent article How can the BBC be saved from itself without destroying it? Reflecting his view that current (and justified) attacks on the BBC could do more harm that good, he says,

... the loss of a powerful independent voice in public life is very real. The prospect of a regulator keeping the corporation on a tight leash is very real too - even before the trust's conduct on climate change is examined. The question is: does the BBC even realise what has happened?

The broadcaster has a long history of courageous reporting. It know hows to tell a rich and complex story without interference. By doing that again and again it can build the public's trust brick by brick. But can the BBC realise the gravity of the situation, and take steps to amend it, before its critics begin dismantle it - throwing it into the arms of a grateful Ed Richards at Ofcom?

Yes, pleasing that it's being picked up by the MSM, however peripherally. But as the Rotherham business showed, the smug lefty-liberal bien-pensant view that we-are always-right-and-you-are-always-wrong-and-in-any-case-we-have-a-VAST-pot-of-your-money-to-fall-back-on-and-with-which-to-ignore-entirely-anything-you-may think-important is going to require several million tons of high explosive even to cause a few insignificant flakes to be dislodged from what is now an immense edifice of entrenched self-interest.

The irony, pitiful and painful, is that this grotesque performance has at its heart the notion, admirable in theory, corrosive in practice, of the state as a disinterested, benevolent entity when the reality is a dysfunctional, lumbering, semi-sentient ogre-like being not merely unaware of the trail of destruction its clumsy and increasingly aggressive thrashing leaves behind it but relentlessly asserting the purity of its motives – and all the while shrieking for more of everyone else's money to feed its gargantuan appetite.

Interesting times. Most of the MSM continue to ignore the story; a few like the Scotsman recognise the profound implications of this incident. If I may quote your own stirring conclusion to Hiding the Decine: "The response to it (Climategate) was an extraordinary failure of the institutions and of the people who are paid to protect the public interest - a failure of honesty, a failure of diligence, a failure of integrity. Their failure to seek the truth and to speak the truth condemns them utterly." I don't know whether this is the scandal that will bring it all tumbling down or whether it will be the next (inevitable) one. But I truly believe it will happen, sooner or later.

No, we don't. If there is a sea-change, I suspect it be very long drawn out, with many reverses. After all, it's taken the best part of 40-plus years for today's New Establishment to oust what it would no doubt dismiss as the crusty relics it first confronted in the 60s. Should a more reasoned view prevail, it will have just as long and hard a road to travel.

But, yes, that is a very definite 'No' against the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2016. Break it up, sell it off, make it smaller, above all make it justify itself in the real world rather than the artificial one it has constructed to boost itself so shamelessly and smugly.

Monteith makes a good case but I grow weary of the ritual genuflection towards the supposed past excellence of the BBC. Orlowski does the same - it's as if no one is able to write about the Corporation without muttering some ritual incantation to show that one isn't (presumably) being paid by Rupert Murdoch.

I wouldn't dispute that it was once better than it is now (at least in terms of its consistent bias) but was it ever even half as good as the myth suggests? It was never a great investigator of stories and it slid greasily from being the mouthpiece of one establishment to being that of its successor with no apparent discomfort..

Is that an example of the Scottish talent for identifying the essential, (vide Duns Scotus and David Hume) or a heartless disregard for the sensibility of their Anglocentric compatriots?Whatever, this is the kind of media breakthrough which just might make our obsessions a matter of national concern.

2011: Guardian: BBC still pays up to 135 execs more than Prime Ministerhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/20/bbc-executive-pay

u may have seen this in the Mail, unattributed. CAGW sceptics consider the Mail is willing to cover their varying views (but unfortunately it is only on the rare occasion, whilst the alarmism is repeated over and over and over):

(VIDEO) 24 Nov: Daily Mail: ‘World is committing suicide on a grand scale’: Prince Charles warns of doomed planet unless we solve green issuesHe claims world is heading towards ‘terrifying point of no return’Future generations facing ‘unimaginable future’ if we don’t actPrince says he was written off as a crank over his green viewsBy Daily Mail ReporterHis comments came in a pre-recorded video speech accepting a lifetime achievement award at the 7th International Green Awards at Battersea Power Station in London…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237776/World-committing-suicide-grand-scale-Prince-Charles-warns-doomed-planet-unless-solve-green-issues.html

no MSM covered Charles above as Comedy, except for a Canadian outlet:

26 Nov: The Province Canada: Likable Prince Charles has lost plotHe's one of the world's most entertaining eco-evangelists, far more likable than the oily Al Gore or our own abrasive David Suzuki...Yes, he told a London green awards ceremony - on the eve of the United Nations climate-change conference Monday in Qatar - that humankind is on the verge of "committing suicide on a grand scale," unless rapid progress is made on environmental issues.According to the Daily Mail, Charles claimed Earth was doomed to an "unimaginable future" if the problems of carbon emissions, intensive farming with pesticides and natural-resource depletion were not addressed. The world was heading toward a terrifying point of no return..."It's therefore an act of suicide on a grand scale to ride so roughshod over those checks and balances and flout nature's necessary limits as blatantly as we do," Charles said, adding, "We simply have to turn the tide."You mean, like King Canute? And judging by other doomsayers, we only have until Dec. 21 to do it - because that's when the world will end, based on the Mayan Long Count calendar.Don't give up all hope, though. As Wall Street Journal columnist Matt Ridley wrote recently in Wired Magazine, it doesn't matter how often these scares fail to come true, another invariably comes along...Myself, I believe in Prince Charles' predictive abilities as much as I do in those of any taxpayer-supported eco-elitist with a vested interest in - or addiction to - stoking the fears of lesser mortals. But then I am a recovering apocaholic. And I'm taking it one day a time.http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Likable+Prince+Charles+lost+plot/7609372/story.html#axzz2DMafUea0

I wouldn't dispute that [the BBC] was once better than it is now .. but was it ever even half as good as the myth suggests?

Even if it were only a quarter as good as the myth suggests, it was better than it had to be, and infinitely better than its commercial rivals (and I speak as someone who hasn’t watched it regularly since the days of Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men).I recently transcribed a Guardian/Greenpeace discussion in which Murdoch employee Ben Webster regretted that he was no longer environment editor of the Times because he felt obliged to take over the job of media editor in the Times’ moment of need, i.e. the day his boss found himself before the Parliamentary Committee. To those who systematically denigrate the BBC in favour of a ”free” (=capitalist) press, I say - keep crawling.

Wikipedia: Daily Mail and General TrustDivisions:RMSRisk Management Solutions (RMS), a catastrophe risk modelling company, is a subsidiary of the DMGT group.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail_and_General_Trust

14 March: Rand Corporation: RAND Corporation, Risk Management Solutions Launch New Company to Develop Liability Insurance ToolsThe RAND Corporation, Risk Management Solutions, Inc. (RMS) and private investors have launched a company named Praedicat, Inc., that will provide consulting services and software to the property and casualty insurance industries, officials announced today... Based in Newark, Calif., RMS is the leading provider of products and services for the financial management of global catastrophe risk...Praedicat will use new approaches to extend a field of analytics called catastrophe risk modeling. These models are used extensively by the insurance industry and other financial markets to manage the property and casualty risk posed by natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Praedicat is developing "liability catastrophe models." Liability catastrophes are catastrophes with a human cause for which businesses or people may be held liable, such as asbestos or climate change***...James A. Thomson, the former president and CEO of RAND, will serve as chairman of the Praedicat board of directors. Along with Thomson, Reville and Shah, the board also will include Siddhartha Dalal, chief technology officer of RAND, and Jacques Dubois, a private investor and former chairman and CEO of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation. http://www.rand.org/news/press/2012/03/14.html

from 2007, extremely interesting, including comments:

3 May2007: Climate Audit: Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 ProfessorsIn the complaint about (The Great Global Warming) Swindle by Risk Management Solutions Ltd., endorsed by a gaggle of 37 professors, they allege that the Swindle graphic of 20th century claims in connection with 20th century temperature change contains the following misrepresentations...When a corporation, which has contracts with major insurers, makes highly visible public allegations like this, you’d think that they’d go to the trouble to ensure that the claims are correct. Likewise, when 37 climate scientists sign onto the claim, including temperature specialist, Phil Jones, you’d think that they’d also go to the trouble to ensure that the claim is correct. When they go on to argue that communications with the public – into which category their Open Letter to Martin Durkin published on a website surely qualifies – should have proper due diligence, you’d think that they’d double check that a specific claim like this was true.But hey, this is climate science...http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/03/risk-management-solutions-ltd-and-the-38-professors/

26 Nov: RTT News: Cambridge Univ To Open Center For "terminator-like Studies"Cambridge University will open a center for "terminator-like studies", a facility which will be focused on understanding the "four greatest threats" to mankind, given as artificial intelligence, nuclear war, climate change and rogue biotechnology. The Centre for the study of External Risk or CSER will be co-launched by astronomer royal Lord Rees, a leading cosmologist. The center will bring together academics from a wide range of disciplines, including astronomy, biology, robotics, neuroscience and even philosophy and economics. Rees is the man who warned that mankind could destroy itself completely by the year 2100. He is launching the center alongside Huw Price, a philosophy professor at Cambridge. Also an integral part of the program is Skype co-founder, Jaan Tallinn...http://www.rttnews.com/2011768/cambridge-univ-to-open-center-for-terminator-like-studies.aspx?type=gag

the monolithic MSM across the board love this, with its Terminator movie angle:

26 Nov: Fox News from The Sun: 'Terminator center' to open at Cambridge UniversityThe Center for the Study of Existential Risk is being co-launched by astronomer royal Lord Rees, one of the world’s leading cosmologists. It will probe the “four greatest threats” to the human species, given as: artificial intelligence, climate change, nuclear war and rogue biotechnology...“There’s a mismatch between public perception of very different risks and their actual seriousness," Rees added. “We fret unduly about carcinogens in food, train crashes and low-level radiation.“But we are in denial about ‘low-probability high-consequence’ events that should concern us more and which, in our ever more interconnected world, could have global consequences.”..http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/11/26/terminator-center-to-open-at-cambridge-university/

26 Nov: Guardian: Martin Rees: Cambridge University's "Terminator studies" department – do we really need it?Cambridge University is to launch a centre for the study of existential risks to the human race – including the rogue robot scenario depicted in the Terminator films. The astronomer royal, co-founder of the centre, explains why it's necessary.Over most of history, threats have come from nature – disease, earthquakes, floods, and so forth. But the worst now come from us. We've entered a geological era called the anthropocene...Some global hazards are insidious. They stem from pressure on energy supplies, food, water and other natural resources. And they will be aggravated as the population rises to a projected nine billion by mid-century, and by the effects of climate change. An "ecological shock" could irreversibly degrade our environment.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/shortcuts/2012/nov/26/cambridge-university-terminator-studies

PatYour facts are interesting, but O/T here. The fact that Newbery and Morabito’s efforts have AT LAST been rewarded with the first article in the MSM (apart from Booker’s, which, alas, will always be ignored because, well, because it’s Booker - our bravest, best journalist, who will always be ignored because no-one is quite sure which side he’s on) is IMPORTANT. Will the London media react to something published in Edinburgh? Will the press start to ask questions about the journalistic standards of one of the world’s most prestigious news media? This is something we can influence by commenting wherever the subject is raised.

Fascinating to consider how we would react if the BBC demonstrated such an overt bias in other areas.

From reading the comments in The Scotsman, there seem to be many Scottish nationalists who are convinced that there is just such a bias in another area. They are probably more widespread and vocal than climate sceptics. Because of the undeniability of 28gate, they are likely repeatedly to call attention to it as they protest about the BBC's bias on their issue and they won't let it drop.

Has anyone else noticed that there have been no reference to climate chamge, global warming etc in BBC news reports about the current wet weather and floods. Has the BBC decided to lie low, or could this be the beginning of a policy change. Keep up the pressure.

"Even if it were only a quarter as good as the myth suggests, it was better than it had to be, and infinitely better than its commercial rivals (and I speak as someone who hasn’t watched it regularly since the days of Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men).!

To which I can only say, perhaps you should have done.

I'm sure there must be a word in German for 'nostalgia for something that never existed'

I suspect, probably not. In the "good, old days" we didn't have the access to sources and the virtually instant communication available to us now. Just imagine trying to carry out an investigation like this by snail mail - even though the GPO was better then:)

In fact, if you look at the quality of newspapers in the 20th Century (and yes, of course there were exceptions) the standard of reporting was occasionally very high. A regular criticism of the BBC for many years has been its inablity/unwilligness to research and break major stories. Ironically, this was the very reason Gilligan was recruited for Today.

The BBC has never lacked resources but it has certainly lacked an investigative culture - well, unless you would describe Rantzen et al exposing dodgy double glazing companies as 'investigative journalism'.

And when it actually did have a major story within its own walls (Saville)? It said and did nothing.

"But it is at the courtrooms of British Columbia, Canada that we must first begin our rousing roundup of news. It is here that popular Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball delivers the evidence signalling not one, but two impending dramatic legal victories against carbon hating junk climate scientists. Specialist Canadian libel firm, Pearlman Lindholm are to announce the filing of separate counterclaims on behalf of Dr. Ball and against discredited climate professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver. Recently the Nobel Committee affirmed that both professors lied when each claimed to be co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Ball's legal team are to file stiff counterclaims in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to coincide with the announcement of his victory not only over Mann, but also over fellow IPCC doomsayer, Weaver. Cynics will say Weaver’s qualification as a proven and adept liar who "bribed university students with research funding" helped clinch his position as new Green Party leader. "

Do anyone have the legal filing of the counterclaims? yet? Or really any other info on this? Should be fun to watch realclimate and other fall apart as the hero mann has now lost and will lose badly the counter suit.

my point is the MSM is monolithic when it comes to defending the centres of power, and that includes the forces behind the CAGW scam; the Beeb is not alone when it comes to CAGW alarmism, and it is most definitely not socialist. what Maurizio Morabito and Tony Newbery have helped uncover at the Beeb is of the utmost importance, so how come the Murdoch media hasn't jumped at the opportunity to interview Maurizio and/or Tony? it's a huge story, and the CAGW meme has it that Murdoch is a sceptic, so what an opportunity he is missing to get one back on the Beeb!

given how recently the Beeb led the charge - alongside the Guardian - against Murdoch on the phone hacking scandal, how come the Beeb has announced former head of Sky News, Nick Pollard, to head their internal investigation in the Jimmy Savile affair?

23 Nov: Ariel: Pollard will report later than expectedThe inquiry, led by former head of Sky News Nick Pollard, into the decision to abandon a Newsnight investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile, had been expected to reveal its findings in the second half of November.'Taking into account the need for a thorough and fair process, the further interviews planned, the need to consider additional documents and the time required for report preparation, I have informed the BBC that I now expect to provide my report to the BBC by mid-December,' said Pollard...http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/20464893

i am happy to have a go at the Beeb all day long. i worked at bush house for two years and witnessed their nonstop geopolitical propaganda on a daily basis. CAGW propaganda is no different. it is geopolitical, nothing less than an attempt to re-engineer the western financial system from a petrodollar economy to a carbon (dioxide) currency economy, and i would like to see all people, of all political persuasions, come together to stop this from happening.

btw i have only been able to open tony newbery's harmless sky blog once or twice in the dozens of times i've tried in the past few weeks, which means i have no way of knowing what bish is referring to on the recent "28 gate still running" thread, except for what can be gleaned from the comments.

could maurizio please post it all - including comments - on his omnologos blog, which is easy to access? i've looked on maurizio's website, but cannot find any mention of their latest discoveries.

26 Nov: Daily Mail: Canadian boss (Mark Carney) for Bank of England: City stunned as Osborne snubs tainted British candidates to hire first ever foreign governor His future wife had been brought up in privileged surroundings in Cheltenham. Indeed her sister, Lady Tania, lives in the sprawling Cornbury Park estate, which neighbours Blenheim Palace, with her shipping heir husband Viscount Rotherwick...(re British wife, economist Diana Fox Carney): Once in Canada, she continued to explore her long held interest in green issues.She recently wrote on an ecologist website: ‘About 15 years ago, I made a conscience decision to switch to eco products whenever possible. ‘Since then I have actively sought out organic, natural and resource-saving products (and tried to limit my overall consumption). ‘I do not claim to be an eco-purist and my journey towards natural products has not always been smooth. But I do think I have made progress.’ Last year she took on a senior role, as vice president of research, in the think-tank Canada 2020 – whose mission statement is create ‘the Canada we want in 2020’ by ‘informing and influencing debate’...(SIDEBAR) ...he studied economics at Harvard and Oxford University before embarking on a 13-year career in investment banking with Goldman Sachs...He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements, a member of the Group of Thirty, and of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238713/Canadian-boss-Bank-England-City-stunned-Osborne-snubs-tainted-British-candidates-hire-foreign-governor.html

26 Nov: Telegraph: Jon Swaine: New Bank of England Governor Mark Carney's wife: an eco-warrior who says banks are rottenDiana Carney has expressed sympathy for the anti-banking Occupy movement and suggested that global financial institutions are “rotten or inadequate”. She has described the notion that humans should halt all consumption to save the environment as a “good point” but “very hard given the way our societies function”, and has also lamented the “relentless exhortations to buy and the fact that much of our sense of self is tied up in our possessions”. Mrs Carney, who met her husband, Mark, at Oxford, is vice-president of Canada 2020, a Left-wing think tank, and reviews environmentally-friendly products...Mrs Carney also urges readers of her website to live frugally. Describing herself as a “farmer’s daughter” she wears recycled vegan shoes, describes environmentally-friendly ways to tackle head lice and recommends “gardening with cow poo”. “Reducing consumption, or returning it to levels that are sustainable, is critical overall,” she wrote online. “Fortunately, it has been repeatedly shown that having more stuff does not make us happy, so we should be able to make that step”...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9704385/New-Bank-of-England-Governor-Mark-Carneys-wife-an-eco-warrior-who-says-banks-are-rotten.html

Diana Fox's website:

EcoProductsThatWork.comhttp://ecoproductsthatwork.com/

26 Nov: Telegraph: Wikipedia: Mark CarneyGoldman's role in the Russian crisis was criticized at the time because while the company was advising Russia it was simultaneously betting against the country's ability to repay its debt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Carney

Your posts are not only frequently Off-Topic but also invariably a jumbled mess. It is hard to figure out what's been quoted from where and what's your own comment and what's not. No capital letters indicating the beginning of a sentence, no quotation marks, no blockquotes, no paragraphs, no nothing. If I read slowly I may be able to figure out what's what only to be disappointed to find it irrelevant or barely relevant.

It is also not fair to others who provide their tips and notes in the Unthreaded while you habitually post your latest 'interesting' finds on the web to the latest BH thread and instantly cluttering it.

This is not good netizenship. Cease and desist, please.

Consider this request as an example of 'markets sorting itself out' as opposed to being commanded by the authorities.

pat's a blogger's commenter. Following threads and dragging out connections. The Bank of England is now potentially influenced someone wearing vegan shoes and a 'mom' who plans the future for the whole of Canada 10 years ahead.

Whenever I read about how wonderful the BBC is I can't help checking the listings for its flagship TV channel, BBC 1. So let's see what's on offer this evening:

Quiz show, "News" (no doubt with the usual emphasis on the internal politics of football), Magazine program promoting another BBC program, then two and a half hours of solid soaps, News again, couple of pretentious arts programmes... how is this public service broadcasting?

Regarding the BBC. I have followed what happens when people complain to the BBC about something, by observing the 'Platitude of The Day' blog and the, now dormant, 'I hate the Jeremy Vine Show' blog. The BBC always dismisses the complainant with absolute contempt and will never admit to being wrong about anything ever. They use tricks such as using the word 'implied' in place of the word 'stated' when a beeboid has said something insulting and false about something. The reason for this is clear. If they were dealing with customers who have a choice about whether or not to give the BBC their money, they would not be able to get away with having such a bad attitude, their customers would simply take their business elsewhere. Since the BBC is funded by what amounts to a protection racket, this is not an option.

Regarding the OP. There were many true believers among the commenters who seemed to think that the one sided approach was completely appropriate since the truth is obvious and anyone who disagrees is much the same as a holocaust denier, an anti-vaxer or a creationist, people who are definitely, totally anti-science. Well I'm not. I'm not a scientist but I understand how the scientific method works*. I also understand that the proof that science works lies in technology. Scientists can predict the future with astonishing accuracy when it comes to things like eclipses. This is because, with astonomy, the unknown variables have been reduced to almost nil. Do these people really believe that weather and climate can be predicted with this kind of accuracy? Prophets of doom have close to a one hundred percent track record of being wrong. The science based prophesies have faired little better than the religious ones did. I take a kind of smug satisfaction in knowing that I only have to bide my time to see the doom-mongers proven wrong.

*The scientific method involves allowing those who disagree with you complete and open access to your data and methodology. If you are correct and they are wrong, nothing that they do can prove that you are mistaken. On the other hand, if you are wrong, this is the best way to find out. I'm not sure that all of our climatologists are aware of how this is supposed to work.

I forgot to mention that proving the doom-mongers wrong can be difficult when they can claim victory even when the actual outcome was the precise opposite of what they predicted. Early this year, the UK was facing the prospect of a prolonged drought, the direct result of 'Climate Change' we were told. What actually occured was the wettest summer on record, followed by a really wet November. Of course, once more, 'Climate Change' is to blame.